Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Post Election "high"
- Thread starter Timebuilder
- Start date
- Watchers 17
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
airbrush
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Posts
- 146
I've been too busy the last few days to jump in on this debate, so hopefully I'm not too late.
Actually, MOST of it has been civil. Burping Boy's gleeful condescension was getting a bit old.
We can continue this thread until the next millenium, and most likely not change many opinions. There are just as many books and websites out there to support the accuracy of the Bible as there are to critcize it, and although I'm sure Snakum, cjh, BB, and the others would immediately consider any supporting documentation to be "highly suspect" (so much for open mindedness), there is no less of a biased agenda behind those who seek to discredit it. The methods and assumptions of the Jim Merrits and Dennis McKinseys can also be taken to task for the presumptions they bring to their analysis, and their conclusions refuted by others.
In the last century, dozens of highly educated, highly motivated skeptics have traveled the world, searching for the one piece of incontrovertable evidence that will once and for all put an end this Bible myth. They haven't found it. I don't have all the names and references in front of me at the moment, but while some have actually become believers, even the others had to admit (grudgingly, I'm sure) that their findings either supported Biblical accounts, or were neutral in their effect.
As far as contemporary writings supporting the existence of Jesus and documenting his life, there are accounts by Flavius Josephus (as mentioned by Enigma), a Roman Jewish historian who certainly had no reason to support Christ. Other Roman historians record the unusual darkening of the daytime sky during the Crucifiction, as mentioned in the Bible and documented by modern astronomers as an event outside of natural phenomenon (sun and moon in the wrong postions). Still other writings from other sources (actually, mundane records of daily business) mention the "Messiah figure" sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate. Accounts of Tower of Babel exist in documents bearing the seal of King Nebucadnezzer of Babylon. The list goes on, and there are many good books on the subject for those interested.
In terms of science having "disproved" the Bible, that is also a popular but mistaken assumption. The fossil record contains over 100 million specimens, but is amazingly lacking an verifiable transitional forms. Statements from leading evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, even the late Carl Sagan indicate diverse differences in opinion and an almost religious dedication to the aspects of their beliefs that so far have eluded scientific support, thus requiring their own brand of "blind faith", which you have already discredited as lacking in intellectual substance.
Studies in other areas of science, from biology (mitochondrial DNA) to geology and methods of carbon dating, along with salinity tests of the oceans and mathematical probabilities of the spontaneous formation of even a single, simple cell (much less the complex and diverse organisms that we see in the world around us), have cast serious doubt on long-held assumptions of timelines and other research. Then we have the objective, intellectual model of Gould's writings, which display such an intense hatred of those who disagree with him (including many of his peers) that it makes the idea of rational, unbiased scientific study as laughable as you claim the Biblical accounts to be.
Like a defense attorney, you think the case is won not by proving the innocence of your client, but by attempting to cast just enough doubt on his guilt to supposedly discredit the prosecution, without the burden of producing evidence to fully support your case. If the universe just IS, then please, PROVE to me, with a level of documentation that would be adequate to satisfy that which you require from me, how and when the universe originated and why it exists. Document the Big Bang (from where did the matter originate, and what caused the explosion? From where did the vacuum into which it expanded come, and what may have been displaced in the process?). Can't be done.
In essence, both of our belief systems, either in a Divine Creator or a mindless, pointless accident, eventually run into a dead end, beyond which we have nothing but conjecture to offer. We usually then go with our gut, sifting the available information through that filter, building our world view, discarding that which doesn't fit (a practice not limited to just certain parties), trying to answer the question that has been with mankind since the beginning (by whichever source).
I choose to believe in the Divine origin and inspiration of Man in part because of what we are doing right now: using instruments invented by man, connected through a system devised by man, utilizing our ability to harness that which exists around us, communicating in a written language (in a forum that is based on the fact that we have invented FLYING MACHINES, or crying out loud!), across the world if necessary. Think about it; look at the sheer wonder of the entirety of human activity in a single day, in every culture, language, etc....... Art, literature, communication, transportation, music, construction; planes that fly and ships that sail and satellites that orbit the earth and allow us to talk to each other and see pictures in seconds; I can't even begin to mention it all, and most of this came about by man's imagination in just the last century alone! Now, since we "evolved" from monkeys, show me the progress made by even the most intelligent primate in the last THOUSAND YEARS?
I'm getting long, but one last point. You (to no one in particular, just in general) claim the world would be a wonderful place if we could just dispose of religious belief systems. Well, the USSR was officially an athiest state, even teaching classes in the schools denying the existence of God. Over the course of 70 plus years, and estimated 200 MILLION people were slaughtered or imprisoned for daring to disagree with the Party line, and similar events took place in other regimes, from China to Cambodia and too many others, all in the name of NO GOD. If the individual has no greater value than a rodent, those in power can decide to exterminate anyone or group of their choosing if the situation suits them, so the problem isn't solved. And THAT, friends, is the situation we Christians find as a possibility if the ideas some of you espouse become official government policy in the future, given enough time and repetition in the minds of those who do not take the time to explore the issue, and one that I would be irresponsible to not fight against. So, although religion and politics can be a distastful mix, they are hard to separate (atheism is classified as a religion), and unfortunately, the head-butting will most certainly continue.
I contend that we are, at our core, spiritual creatures, with most of us sensing the innate desire to seek beyond that which we see, the need to believe that we are more than just an accident of a mindless nature, living a pointless existence. You may find that to be a crutch for the intellectually vacant, but I believe you are in the distinct minority.
I wish you all luck in your quest.
P.S. By the way, BB, a bat is not a bird. The original Hebrew term in the passage you mentioned is "ofe", which means "flying thing" or "flyer" (gee, does that make all of us on this board OAFS?). If the translator had simply used that term, you would have no discrepancy.
Fly safe, everyone!
Actually, MOST of it has been civil. Burping Boy's gleeful condescension was getting a bit old.
We can continue this thread until the next millenium, and most likely not change many opinions. There are just as many books and websites out there to support the accuracy of the Bible as there are to critcize it, and although I'm sure Snakum, cjh, BB, and the others would immediately consider any supporting documentation to be "highly suspect" (so much for open mindedness), there is no less of a biased agenda behind those who seek to discredit it. The methods and assumptions of the Jim Merrits and Dennis McKinseys can also be taken to task for the presumptions they bring to their analysis, and their conclusions refuted by others.
In the last century, dozens of highly educated, highly motivated skeptics have traveled the world, searching for the one piece of incontrovertable evidence that will once and for all put an end this Bible myth. They haven't found it. I don't have all the names and references in front of me at the moment, but while some have actually become believers, even the others had to admit (grudgingly, I'm sure) that their findings either supported Biblical accounts, or were neutral in their effect.
As far as contemporary writings supporting the existence of Jesus and documenting his life, there are accounts by Flavius Josephus (as mentioned by Enigma), a Roman Jewish historian who certainly had no reason to support Christ. Other Roman historians record the unusual darkening of the daytime sky during the Crucifiction, as mentioned in the Bible and documented by modern astronomers as an event outside of natural phenomenon (sun and moon in the wrong postions). Still other writings from other sources (actually, mundane records of daily business) mention the "Messiah figure" sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate. Accounts of Tower of Babel exist in documents bearing the seal of King Nebucadnezzer of Babylon. The list goes on, and there are many good books on the subject for those interested.
In terms of science having "disproved" the Bible, that is also a popular but mistaken assumption. The fossil record contains over 100 million specimens, but is amazingly lacking an verifiable transitional forms. Statements from leading evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, even the late Carl Sagan indicate diverse differences in opinion and an almost religious dedication to the aspects of their beliefs that so far have eluded scientific support, thus requiring their own brand of "blind faith", which you have already discredited as lacking in intellectual substance.
Studies in other areas of science, from biology (mitochondrial DNA) to geology and methods of carbon dating, along with salinity tests of the oceans and mathematical probabilities of the spontaneous formation of even a single, simple cell (much less the complex and diverse organisms that we see in the world around us), have cast serious doubt on long-held assumptions of timelines and other research. Then we have the objective, intellectual model of Gould's writings, which display such an intense hatred of those who disagree with him (including many of his peers) that it makes the idea of rational, unbiased scientific study as laughable as you claim the Biblical accounts to be.
Like a defense attorney, you think the case is won not by proving the innocence of your client, but by attempting to cast just enough doubt on his guilt to supposedly discredit the prosecution, without the burden of producing evidence to fully support your case. If the universe just IS, then please, PROVE to me, with a level of documentation that would be adequate to satisfy that which you require from me, how and when the universe originated and why it exists. Document the Big Bang (from where did the matter originate, and what caused the explosion? From where did the vacuum into which it expanded come, and what may have been displaced in the process?). Can't be done.
In essence, both of our belief systems, either in a Divine Creator or a mindless, pointless accident, eventually run into a dead end, beyond which we have nothing but conjecture to offer. We usually then go with our gut, sifting the available information through that filter, building our world view, discarding that which doesn't fit (a practice not limited to just certain parties), trying to answer the question that has been with mankind since the beginning (by whichever source).
I choose to believe in the Divine origin and inspiration of Man in part because of what we are doing right now: using instruments invented by man, connected through a system devised by man, utilizing our ability to harness that which exists around us, communicating in a written language (in a forum that is based on the fact that we have invented FLYING MACHINES, or crying out loud!), across the world if necessary. Think about it; look at the sheer wonder of the entirety of human activity in a single day, in every culture, language, etc....... Art, literature, communication, transportation, music, construction; planes that fly and ships that sail and satellites that orbit the earth and allow us to talk to each other and see pictures in seconds; I can't even begin to mention it all, and most of this came about by man's imagination in just the last century alone! Now, since we "evolved" from monkeys, show me the progress made by even the most intelligent primate in the last THOUSAND YEARS?
I'm getting long, but one last point. You (to no one in particular, just in general) claim the world would be a wonderful place if we could just dispose of religious belief systems. Well, the USSR was officially an athiest state, even teaching classes in the schools denying the existence of God. Over the course of 70 plus years, and estimated 200 MILLION people were slaughtered or imprisoned for daring to disagree with the Party line, and similar events took place in other regimes, from China to Cambodia and too many others, all in the name of NO GOD. If the individual has no greater value than a rodent, those in power can decide to exterminate anyone or group of their choosing if the situation suits them, so the problem isn't solved. And THAT, friends, is the situation we Christians find as a possibility if the ideas some of you espouse become official government policy in the future, given enough time and repetition in the minds of those who do not take the time to explore the issue, and one that I would be irresponsible to not fight against. So, although religion and politics can be a distastful mix, they are hard to separate (atheism is classified as a religion), and unfortunately, the head-butting will most certainly continue.
I contend that we are, at our core, spiritual creatures, with most of us sensing the innate desire to seek beyond that which we see, the need to believe that we are more than just an accident of a mindless nature, living a pointless existence. You may find that to be a crutch for the intellectually vacant, but I believe you are in the distinct minority.
I wish you all luck in your quest.
P.S. By the way, BB, a bat is not a bird. The original Hebrew term in the passage you mentioned is "ofe", which means "flying thing" or "flyer" (gee, does that make all of us on this board OAFS?). If the translator had simply used that term, you would have no discrepancy.
Fly safe, everyone!
DarnNearaJet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2002
- Posts
- 174
True. Millions of people have died in the name of communism. But many more have died in religious wars throughout the ages. If people could just keep their beliefs to themselves, the world woud be a better place.
What really worries me is bible-thumpers who insist on GOVERNMENT-run schools teaching a religious view of our origins in a SCIENCE class. What gives them the right to espouse the Christian theory of creation? What would happen if you found out your children were being taught the Buddhist theory of our origins in their science class as a valid scientific theory?
What really worries me is bible-thumpers who insist on GOVERNMENT-run schools teaching a religious view of our origins in a SCIENCE class. What gives them the right to espouse the Christian theory of creation? What would happen if you found out your children were being taught the Buddhist theory of our origins in their science class as a valid scientific theory?
cjh
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 132
DarnNearaJet,
Just couldn't let it die, could you!
I thought about mentioning this christian back door effort to contaminate the minds of children not already bludgeoned to death intellectually via weekly trips to church, but then I thought "Postings will just take yet another ugly turn, so why bother".
Just couldn't let it die, could you!
I thought about mentioning this christian back door effort to contaminate the minds of children not already bludgeoned to death intellectually via weekly trips to church, but then I thought "Postings will just take yet another ugly turn, so why bother".
flywithastick
Member is: ready
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 684
Sorry, DNAJ, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's communist utopia has killed many, many more.DarnNearaJet said:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
cjh -
You're right. A parent has to be cautious. kids are vulnerable to subversive pursuits, including those from the deviant homosexuals. e.g., priests, books such as "My Two Uncles", etc.
Last edited:
TXCAP4228
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Posts
- 426
Responding to airbrush. All quotes are from airbush. I had to shorten the quotes for size limitations.
2) Lots of highly eductaed people go both ways. This really doesn't prove anything.
3) Those of us on my side of the fence (the non-believing side) would say that you (the believing side) have the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative.
4) Neutral findings that the Bible Stories may have some base in reality does not prove that there is a god any more than findings that there was once such a city as Athens proves that there was a Zeus.
2) There are many books written by people who have been kidnapped by aliens. That doesn't make the stories real and it doesn't make them god.
3) You have an internal link problem - how do you get from some real historical reference to Jesus to Jesus being the son of god?
4) No one really disputes that Jesus may have lived. This part of your argument is a paper tiger - you are trying to frame the debate in such a way that if Jesus lived he must therefore be the son of god. Sorry, I am not buying it. Even if he lived, so what?
2) "blind faith" in science. There is a huge difference. What Dawkins, Gould, Sagan (and I, if I may be so bold to include myself with that list of names) believe will pass the "Popper test". IE, it is conceivably "falsible". It is therefore not blind faith. Your side of the fence, however, cannot pass the Popper test. Your argument is flat wrong (no personal offense intended here).
2) Your side of the fence is the one that cannot change. If that's not bias, I don't know what is.
3) Science is strengthened by disagreement between scientists. The end result is more study and finally a better understanding o the universe. I will not discuss how religion pales in comparison.
4) Science is not complete. Just because we don't know all the answers today does not disprove the approach,
5) Science is as much about the approach to learning and to knowledge, as it is about what the knowledge is. See the falibility stuff above.
2) You have the burden of proof. Why am I the one who has to show the evidence? You show me god. You show me a guy walking on water or stopping the sun in the sky.
3) Again, here you are not really making an argument at all, you are trying to frame the debate in a way that keeps you from having to prove anything.
1) I too am impressed. But I am still missing the internal link (see above), how does this prove there is a god?
2) I should also throw in here that the scientific knowledge that we have today comes in spite of Galileo's ex communication. Our understanding of the universe (in some cases) comes from people who risked religious persecution for disagreeing with church teachings. It is incomprehensible that you would say that MY SIDE has a closed mind.
3) The great things you have mentioned have been resisted at every turn by religious dogma. I've even got a quote somewhere (this is from a century ago) from a minister in the Northeatern United States that said that it was a sin to use a lighting rod! It defies the will of god, you see.
1) The communists simply substituted one dogma for another. I reject their dogma too.
2) These people were killed in the name of a political system, no atheism. You really keep running into this internal link problem.
3) But since you brought it up, how many people have been killed in the name of religion? Would you like me to give you a list? Shall I include the people God destroyed in the flood?
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I will accept definition 3 or 4, but certainly not 1 or 2. And I think you meant one or 2, otherwise you would use the term CONSCIENTIOUSNESS to describe what you believe and you go farter than that.
2) I am decidedly in a minority. But that's ok.
3) I will not insult something that you hold dear by calling it a crutch (this statement is sincere).
So what you're saying is that you are open minded and could be persuaded to be an atheist, right? Give me a break. Just because we will not make a leap of faith doesn't make us close minded.
1) Just a minute ago you were accusing non-believers of being close minded and now you are citing examples of non-beleivers changing their minds.. but I will let this particular contradiciton pass without further comment.
2) Lots of highly eductaed people go both ways. This really doesn't prove anything.
3) Those of us on my side of the fence (the non-believing side) would say that you (the believing side) have the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative.
4) Neutral findings that the Bible Stories may have some base in reality does not prove that there is a god any more than findings that there was once such a city as Athens proves that there was a Zeus.
1) None of these references to Jesus proves that Jesus was a deity.
2) There are many books written by people who have been kidnapped by aliens. That doesn't make the stories real and it doesn't make them god.
3) You have an internal link problem - how do you get from some real historical reference to Jesus to Jesus being the son of god?
4) No one really disputes that Jesus may have lived. This part of your argument is a paper tiger - you are trying to frame the debate in such a way that if Jesus lived he must therefore be the son of god. Sorry, I am not buying it. Even if he lived, so what?
1) If I showed you an interim species you would ask me where the interim species was between it and something else. Each species in the fossil record can be thought of as transitive. This is frankly an old argument that doesn't get you anywhere.
2) "blind faith" in science. There is a huge difference. What Dawkins, Gould, Sagan (and I, if I may be so bold to include myself with that list of names) believe will pass the "Popper test". IE, it is conceivably "falsible". It is therefore not blind faith. Your side of the fence, however, cannot pass the Popper test. Your argument is flat wrong (no personal offense intended here).
1) Science continues to revise itself as our understanding of the universe grows. Your argument that science is weak because it contiues to grow and expand its knowledge is laughable. That's the whole point!
2) Your side of the fence is the one that cannot change. If that's not bias, I don't know what is.
3) Science is strengthened by disagreement between scientists. The end result is more study and finally a better understanding o the universe. I will not discuss how religion pales in comparison.
4) Science is not complete. Just because we don't know all the answers today does not disprove the approach,
5) Science is as much about the approach to learning and to knowledge, as it is about what the knowledge is. See the falibility stuff above.
1) Here, you've got it mostly right. We do believe that you have the burden of proof.
2) You have the burden of proof. Why am I the one who has to show the evidence? You show me god. You show me a guy walking on water or stopping the sun in the sky.
3) Again, here you are not really making an argument at all, you are trying to frame the debate in a way that keeps you from having to prove anything.
1) I too am impressed. But I am still missing the internal link (see above), how does this prove there is a god?
2) I should also throw in here that the scientific knowledge that we have today comes in spite of Galileo's ex communication. Our understanding of the universe (in some cases) comes from people who risked religious persecution for disagreeing with church teachings. It is incomprehensible that you would say that MY SIDE has a closed mind.
3) The great things you have mentioned have been resisted at every turn by religious dogma. I've even got a quote somewhere (this is from a century ago) from a minister in the Northeatern United States that said that it was a sin to use a lighting rod! It defies the will of god, you see.
Ok, if you really have read Gould then you are being disingenuous. Primates and humans split millinea ago - humans do not come from monkeys.
SIGH. Now you really are being disingenuous.
1) The communists simply substituted one dogma for another. I reject their dogma too.
2) These people were killed in the name of a political system, no atheism. You really keep running into this internal link problem.
3) But since you brought it up, how many people have been killed in the name of religion? Would you like me to give you a list? Shall I include the people God destroyed in the flood?
Here you go trying to frame this debate in a way that you win automatically. Sorry, I am not buying it. None of us believes that a human and a rodent have equal value. This is another straw argument. You have framed the debate so that it sounds like atheists are arguing this and then you try to beat down the pseudo argument. Nice try.
Definition of RELIGION from Meriam Webster online:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I will accept definition 3 or 4, but certainly not 1 or 2. And I think you meant one or 2, otherwise you would use the term CONSCIENTIOUSNESS to describe what you believe and you go farter than that.
1) You are a spiritual creature. I am not.
2) I am decidedly in a minority. But that's ok.
3) I will not insult something that you hold dear by calling it a crutch (this statement is sincere).
Birdstrike
Atlantic City
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
- Posts
- 13,334
No Horse Too Dead To Beat
Airbrush, Timebuilder, 310, Enigma, TwinTails:
Give it a rest. Remember all that Pharaoah saw and endured...all those plagues, all those displays of power. He simply would not believe. Period. Lazarus returned from the dead wanting to send a warning to the living...but it didn't happen because he was told that men would not believe even if confronted with a message from beyond the grave.
You are not going to change any minds in this kind of forum. It's not a linear kind of an argument. As Jesus said, "this kind takes much fasting and prayer" This soil has just not been prepared.
Pray for those guys. It's not your responsibility to change a man's heart, that's the Holy Spirit's specialty. You spoke up and took a stand and maybe you'll be a link in the chain. Let's move on.
Airbrush, Timebuilder, 310, Enigma, TwinTails:
Give it a rest. Remember all that Pharaoah saw and endured...all those plagues, all those displays of power. He simply would not believe. Period. Lazarus returned from the dead wanting to send a warning to the living...but it didn't happen because he was told that men would not believe even if confronted with a message from beyond the grave.
You are not going to change any minds in this kind of forum. It's not a linear kind of an argument. As Jesus said, "this kind takes much fasting and prayer" This soil has just not been prepared.
Pray for those guys. It's not your responsibility to change a man's heart, that's the Holy Spirit's specialty. You spoke up and took a stand and maybe you'll be a link in the chain. Let's move on.
enigma
good ol boy
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,279
Re: No Horse Too Dead To Beat
Agreed, and I hope that you notice that I haven't really entered into the debate. Matter of fact, I don't know the whole debate because some of the participants have been on my ignore list for a long time. I have attempted to help bolster the faith of those who choose to believe by offering some small bits of info to show that their faith is not purely blind. I assume, as always, that the majority of readers here do not post. Another as always: I attempt to speak to the lurkers even when responding to a particular post and on one small point I disgree with you; there may be lurkers who haven't yet made up their mind. I am forgiven, but near nearly perfect enough to care if an avowed athiest or agnostic changes his mind, so I'm not trying to convince them.
regards, and thanks for your interest.
8N
Birdstrike said:
Agreed, and I hope that you notice that I haven't really entered into the debate. Matter of fact, I don't know the whole debate because some of the participants have been on my ignore list for a long time. I have attempted to help bolster the faith of those who choose to believe by offering some small bits of info to show that their faith is not purely blind. I assume, as always, that the majority of readers here do not post. Another as always: I attempt to speak to the lurkers even when responding to a particular post and on one small point I disgree with you; there may be lurkers who haven't yet made up their mind. I am forgiven, but near nearly perfect enough to care if an avowed athiest or agnostic changes his mind, so I'm not trying to convince them.
regards, and thanks for your interest.
8N
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
